About: FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS OF INITIAL RT-PCR ASSAYS FOR COVID-19: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS OF INITIAL RT-PCR ASSAYS FOR COVID-19: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : wasabi.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
title	FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS OF INITIAL RT-PCR ASSAYS FOR COVID-19: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Creator	Low, Nicola Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid Buitrago-Garcia, Diana Campo, Rosa Ciapponi, Agustín Martínez-García, Laura Perez-Molina, Jose Rutjes, Anne Simancas-Racines, Daniel Sued, Zambrano-Achig, Paula Zamora, Javier
source	MedRxiv
abstract	Background: Cases with negative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results at initial testing for suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and found to be positive in a subsequent test, are considered as RT-PCR false-negative cases. False-negative cases have important implications for COVID-19 management, isolation, and risk of transmission. We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the proportion of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. Methods: We performed a systematic review and critical appraisal of literature with high involvement of stakeholders in the review process. We searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO database of COVID-19 publications, the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19, and the living systematic review developed by the University of Bern (ISPM). Two authors screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data of included studies (no-independent verification). Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the false-negative proportion with the corresponding 95% CI using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model using STATA 16. Certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. The information is current up to 6 April 2020. Findings: Five studies enrolling 957 patients were included. All studies were affected by several biases and applicability concerns. Pooled estimation of false-negative proportion was 0.085 (95% CI= 0.034 to 0.196; tau-squared = 1.08; 95% CI= 0.27 to 8.28; p<0.001); however, this estimation is highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity, and its interpretation should be avoided. The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low, due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. Conclusions: The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 29% of patients could have an initial RT-PCR false-negative result. Systematic review registration: Protocol available on OSF website: https://osf.io/gp38w/
has issue date	2020-04-21(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787
has license	medrxiv
sha1sum (hex)	e4acfcb9a703eb71dacd3a6250b164316d77eafa
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787
resource representing a document's title	FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS OF INITIAL RT-PCR ASSAYS FOR COVID-19: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
resource representing a document's body	covid:e4acfcb9a703eb71dacd3a6250b164316d77eafa#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'gene' named entity 'medRxiv' named entity 'preprint' named entity 'symptom' named entity 'forest plot' named entity 'infection' named entity 'RNA polymerase' named entity 'RT-PCR' named entity 'viral envelope' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'regression analysis' named entity 'preprint' named entity 'Ovid' named entity 'doi' named entity 'RT-PCR' named entity 'preprint' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'real-time RT-PCR' named entity 'RdRp' named entity 'peer-reviewed' named entity 'false-negative' named entity 'pneumonia' named entity 'medRxiv' named entity 'chest CT' named entity 'China' named entity 'gene' named entity 'signs of infection' named entity 'medRxiv' named entity 'Helicase' named entity 'WHO' named entity 'RT-PCR' named entity 'medRxiv' named entity 'preprint' named entity 'virus' named entity 'copyright holder' named entity 'medRxiv' named entity 'CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0' named entity 'provinces of China' named entity 'false-negative' named entity '1.08' named entity 'RT-PCR' named entity 'SYSTEMATIC REVIEW' named entity 'GRADE' named entity 'pre-print' named entity 'medRxiv' named entity 'medRxiv' named entity 'symptom' named entity 'public health emergency' named entity 'epidemiological' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'medRxiv' named entity 'RT-PCR' named entity 'Coronavirus' named entity 'copyright holder' named entity 'systematic review' named entity 'coronavirus' named entity 'logistic regression' named entity 'medRxiv' named entity 'infection control' named entity 'symptom' named entity 'clinical practice' named entity 'copyright holder' named entity 'peer-reviewed' named entity 'University of Bern' named entity 'RT-PCR' named entity 'preprint' named entity 'copyright holder' named entity 'reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction' named entity 'doi' named entity 'lower respiratory' named entity 'copyright holder' named entity 'epidemics' named entity 'preprint' named entity 'RT-PCR'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software